Skip to content

Font Awesome vs MDBootstrap

Based on 746 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View MDBootstrap details
MetricFont AwesomeMDBootstrapWinner
Performance460Font Awesome
Accessibility8786Font Awesome
Best Practices8978Font Awesome
SEO91100MDBootstrap
Security6874MDBootstrap
TTFB512ms629msFont Awesome
Composite7580MDBootstrap
Performance
Font Awesome
46
MDBootstrap
0
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
MDBootstrap
86
Security
Font Awesome
68
MDBootstrap
74
SEO
Font Awesome
91
MDBootstrap
100
Composite
Font Awesome
75
MDBootstrap
80

Font Awesome outperforms MDBootstrap in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 80). MDBootstrap leads in SEO, security, composite score.

When to choose Font Awesome

Choose Font Awesome when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose MDBootstrap

Choose MDBootstrap when your primary concern is SEO and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 746 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited MDBootstrap sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →

Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.

FAQ

Which is faster, Font Awesome or MDBootstrap?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 0 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or MDBootstrap?
MDBootstrap sites score higher on security analysis (74 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or MDBootstrap?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 86). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, Font Awesome or MDBootstrap?
MDBootstrap sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 91 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), Font Awesome or MDBootstrap?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (512 ms vs 629 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose Font Awesome or MDBootstrap for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome scores higher on overall composite score while Font Awesome may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback